darthgently Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 30 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: With Musk himself being the one who determines whether they make sense? That's not exactly "regulation". You are reading words that aren't there. One can comply with a particular regulation while having little respect for the particular regulation. Seriously, is every regulation you comply with one you have deep respect for? If so, you are an incredibly, unbelievably, unique individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 24 minutes ago, tater said: This has to happen eventually, or we as a species are dead. I'm not a Mars bro, but the capability existing to even seriously consider creating a self-sustaining colony offworld comes with existential risk mitigation. I started writing this whole thing about cannibalism at Jamestown in the 1600s. The early days of any significant human migration are insanely dangerous - but given time, will and a sufficient population base, success can happen. The whole space thing really is a long view project. We know it's the most hostile environment humans have ever explored. That should not stop us, any more than running the numbers on deep sea mining short term profitability vs asteroid mining should make us abandon the less profitable endeavor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Got news for you, unfortunately. Eventually the whole universe will be dead. Duh. But biting it because of a rock (or ice ball) we can't deflect earlier would be a shame. 14 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: If you can redirect an asteroid away from the Earth, that means you can redirect one toward the Earth, too.... Throwing rocks is indeed a concern—any sufficiently powerful spacecraft is a weapon. Humans gonna human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 Just now, tater said: Humans gonna human Yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 Musk can complain about specific regulations as much as he likes, as can any of us. He still has to follow them unless he gets them changed through the same mechanisms that created them in the first place. They've waited for regulatory approval. What more does anyone want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 14 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Got news for you, unfortunately. Eventually the whole universe will be dead And there it is. Let's all just drink cyanide kool aid because, you know, nothing really matters. sigh. Thus ends all trains of thought on the rails of post-modern relativism. Life be damned, dammit. Lol. Yeah, nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 The principle complaint regarding current launch license issues was timing. And SpaceX specifically said that FAA (et al) were overworked. SpaceX said they are often competing with themselves to get the paperwork done. Makes sense, FAA's space approval people were created when a launch or two every month was all they had to deal with. Now it's a couple launches a week, next year SpaceX alone is talking about ~3 per week. Plus ULA (32 kuiper launches have to start sometime), plus Rocket Lab (1 per month?), maybe even a test launch by BO. They are gonna need more people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 Scenario. SLS has a problem and needs to be restacked in the VAB. How long does that take? Stacking SLS the first time took... a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicTech Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 1 minute ago, tater said: Scenario. SLS has a problem and needs to be restacked in the VAB. How long does that take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 27 minutes ago, tater said: Throwing rocks is indeed a concern I believe the solution to this is to redirect significant resources into paper production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 22 minutes ago, tater said: The principle complaint regarding current launch license issues was timing. And SpaceX specifically said that FAA (et al) were overworked. SpaceX said they are often competing with themselves to get the paperwork done. Makes sense, FAA's space approval people were created when a launch or two every month was all they had to deal with. Now it's a couple launches a week, next year SpaceX alone is talking about ~3 per week. Plus ULA (32 kuiper launches have to start sometime), plus Rocket Lab (1 per month?), maybe even a test launch by BO. They are gonna need more people. We could discuss funding levels at the FAA, but that would be political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Deddly said: I believe the solution to this is to redirect significant resources into paper production. Yep. Throwing a large space rock at the earth likely violates several environmental and OSHA regulations. Edited November 17, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Deddly said: I believe the solution to this is to redirect significant resources into paper production. Had I been drinking coffee, it would have been ejected out my nose I think. 34 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: We could discuss funding levels at the FAA, but that would be political. At the panel where this was discussed, all the launch providers agreed on this, FWIW. This has only really become a problem in the last couple years to be fair, so it's not been on the radar. 2020 was <1 per week (closer to 1 every 2 weeks) 2021 was <1 per week. 2022 was ~1.5/wk 2023 will be closer to 2/wk. 2024 might be >3/wk. Edited November 17, 2023 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, tater said: At the panel where this was discussed, all the launch providers agreed on this, FWIW. WIW in the current Congressional environment is precisely nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: WIW in the current Congressional environment is precisely nothing at all. SLS enjoys bipartisan support (and hence Artemis), and this issue is absolutely connected to that program, so maybe it can get some traction. It's also total chump change. Looks like the total number of employees in the Office of Commercial Space Transportation is ~100 (2019 it was 97). If doubling that number came with a cost of $200k per person (with overhead), that's $20M. This is not something that requires billions, or even hundreds of millions. Maybe there could be a user fee for these services, and the launch providers can fund the entire thing making it revenue neutral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 11 minutes ago, tater said: SLS enjoys bipartisan support (and hence Artemis), and this issue is absolutely connected to that program, so maybe it can get some traction. It's also total chump change. Looks like the total number of employees in the Office of Commercial Space Transportation is ~100 (2019 it was 97). If doubling that number came with a cost of $200k per person (with overhead), that's $20M. This is not something that requires billions, or even hundreds of millions. Maybe there could be a user fee for these services, and the launch providers can fund the entire thing making it revenue neutral? The rules against political discussions prevent me from answering most of this. I will say that EASA charges applicants a fee for them to do the work required to certify an aerospace vehicle. To the best of my knowledge, FAA does not. Both extensively rely on the companies involved spending their own money to do the testing and analyses that the regulators require. They also both allow companies to pay their own employees to act on behalf of the regulators. In such cases the employees are sworn by law to be acting on behalf of the government and not the company that is paying them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I will say that EASA charges applicants a fee for them to do the work required to certify an aerospace vehicle. To the best of my knowledge, FAA does not. Both extensively rely on the companies involved spending their own money to do the testing and analyses that the regulators require. They also both allow companies to pay their own employees to act on behalf of the regulators. In such cases the employees are sworn by law to be acting on behalf of the government and not the company that is paying them. Does the FAA have any fee structures at all? Ie: could launch licenses have a fee associated with them (they don't now)? A USDA.gov page ays that many Federal agencies now use user fees for some of their funding, maybe that is a path forward. They could charge for launch/reentry licenses over a certain number per year. Table on page 13: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/40973/51049_aer775c.pdf?v=0 So it's possible to do this, and SpaceX would effectively bear this cost alone for the near future (set launches to 12/yr or something as free, then charge). Even if that sort of structure was not allowed, doubling FAA staff for space would require maybe $100k per launch. Effectively nothing. Edited November 17, 2023 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 High teens. Wow. Presumably this is estimates with reuse, maybe 1 launch for the depot ship. Might also imply a stretched LSS (vs 1200 t props). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 1 hour ago, tater said: High teens. Wow. Presumably this is estimates with reuse, maybe 1 launch for the depot ship. Might also imply a stretched LSS (vs 1200 t props). Yikes. I don't like the way that sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 38 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Yikes. I don't like the way that sounds. Yeah. With a nominal 150t to LEO, and a 1200t depot, that's 7 trips. At 1600t, still under 10 trips. No exactly sure what's going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 Some comments removed. Stick to the topic, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 1 hour ago, tater said: Yeah. With a nominal 150t to LEO, and a 1200t depot, that's 7 trips. At 1600t, still under 10 trips. No exactly sure what's going on. Maybe the boil off they mentioned? Might be a pessimistic/worst case for how much they need to top off the depot for Starship HLS. But if it's really that bad, they might need to develop some system like ACES was looking at to fix it, because that's a lot of potentially wasted launches over time. "High teens" does sound weird though, you might expect like an extra trip or two to account for that, but I haven't done the math so my gut reaction could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 Is the boil-off during ascent from atmospheric heating significantly faster than once in orbit? What percentage of fuel as payload makes it to orbit? High teens still seems really high though. Are other dv requirements not being accounted for beyond the core mission? Dunno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, darthgently said: Is the boil-off during ascent from atmospheric heating significantly faster than once in orbit? What percentage of fuel as payload makes it to orbit? High teens still seems really high though. Are other dv requirements not being accounted for beyond the core mission? There shouldn't be significant boil-off due to atmospheric heating; we are talking about huge volumes of propellant in a reasonably well-insulated tube with low surface-area-to-volume ratios. And atmospheric heating during ascent is really not terribly significant...dynamic pressure peaks early and even that doesn't come with significant heating. Maybe they are talking about the amount of propellant that will have to reach orbit to enable a full-loop mission with refueling in elliptical orbit, or something. Or maybe boil off in space is much worse than previously thought. That's the unsettling possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, Deddly said: I believe the solution to this is to redirect significant resources into paper production. This message is brought to you by Scissors, Inc. Edited November 17, 2023 by Codraroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.